Riccardi v. Lynch et al

Filing 411

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 337 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 367 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 378 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 380 Administrative Motion to Fi le Under Seal; denying 390 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 398 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 401 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 404 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE 12 LITIGATION 11 No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB 13 ORDER DENYING PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 15 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS / 16 17 This litigation now having been resolved, the Court must determine which documents, 18 or portions thereof, should remain permanently shielded from public view. The Court has 19 received numerous motions to seal certain portions of documents which number in the 20 thousands of pages, most of which are heavily or entirely redacted. Specifically, the Court 21 now has before it the following pending motions: Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion 22 to File Under Seal (dkt. 337); Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 23 (dkt. 367); Objector A.J. Copeland’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 378); 24 Objector Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 380); Objectors 25 A.J. Copeland’s and Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 390); 26 Hewlett Packard’s Objection re Unsealing in Part of Consolidated Shareholder Derivative 27 Complaint; Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 398); 28 Directors’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 401); and Objector Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 404). 1 For the following reasons, all pending motions to seal are hereby DENIED. As an 2 initial matter, XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of conditions discussed 3 previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at 7. However, 4 Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the 5 Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately 6 be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody 7 pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This 8 Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of 9 removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail 11 determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion. 12 It has also not escaped the Court’s attention that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 13 XXXX subject of one or more immigration detainers issued in the last few days or weeks in 14 connection with the instant offense. See Transcript July 10 at 3–4, 6–8. In its reply to 15 Stepanyan’s appeal, the Government contends—apparently for the first time—that Stepanyan 16 has an extant warrant of removal issued on or about June 8, 2001 based on the fact that he is 17 an aggravated felon by virtue of his prior conviction for health care fraud. See Gov’t 18 Response (dkt. 199) at 5.According to the Government, the fact that Stepanyan may be taken 19 into immigration custody if released by this Court disqualifies him from release. But 20 Congress begs to differ. The Government’s argument skips over—without a single word 21 about—“the very statute in which Congress reconciles the release and detention statutes 22 with the administrative deportation statutes.” See United States v. Adomako, 150 F. Supp. 23 2d 1302, 1307 (M.D. Fl. 2001); see generally Gov’t Response. In fact, “Congress expressly 24 instructs this Court to disregard the laws governing release in INS deportation proceedings 25 when it determines the propriety of release or detention of a deportable alien pending trial.” 26 Adomako, 150 F. Supp. 2d at 1307. Under Section 3142(d) of the Bail Reform Act, “if the 27 court determines that the defendant is not a United States citizen or a lawfully admitted 28 permanent resident and may flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community, it 2 1 shall detain him for no more than ten days and direct the government’s attorney to notify the 2 appropriate immigration official. If such official does not take the defendant into custody 3 during that ten day period, the defendant ‘shall be treated in accordance with the other 4 provisions of this section, notwithstanding the applicability of other provisions of law 5 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX= 6 Moreover, XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a 7 series of conditions discussed previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 8 (dkt. 178) at 7. However, Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan 9 based on the Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 immediately be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 11 custody pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See 12 id. This Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order 13 of removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to 14 deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail 15 determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion. 16 In that same vein, XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of 17 conditions discussed previously at a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at 18 7. However, Magistrate Judge Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the 19 Government’s representations that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately 20 be taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody 21 pursuant to an outstanding immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This 22 Court disagrees that the existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of 23 removal, or the risk that Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to 24 deny Stepanyan bail under the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail 25 determination to Magistrate Judge Corley in light of this opinion. XXXXXXXXXXXXX 26 XXXXXXXXXXXXX Stepanyan on bond under a series of conditions discussed previously at 27 a hearing on June 18. See Transcript July 10 (dkt. 178) at 7. However, Magistrate Judge 28 Corley ultimately declined to release Stepanyan based on the Government’s representations 3 1 that if Stepanyan were to be released, he would immediately be taken into United States 2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody pursuant to an outstanding 3 immigration detainer issued either July 6 or July 9. See id. This Court disagrees that the 4 existence of an outstanding immigration detainer or order of removal, or the risk that 5 Stepanyan will be taken into ICE custody, is a sufficient reason to deny Stepanyan bail under 6 the Bail Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the bail determination to Magistrate 7 Judge Corley in light of this opinion. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the pending administrative motions to seal are DENIED.1 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Dated: July 28, 2015 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 No motion for reconsideration will be entertained unless HP identifies within three days “a limited amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection” under the “compelling reasons” standard of Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006), outlined by page and line number and including “specific factual findings” for each. See O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. c-13-3826-EMC, 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015). In light of the “public interest in understanding the judicial process” as it relates to the settlement of these claims, the Court will not countenance arguments that public filing would put HP at a competitive or legal disadvantage. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?